Purple & green fringing/CA 85 1.8 -- UGH!

Oh, it's there all right -- and, yes, NOT desirable. I am almost tempted to go back and pixel peep at all the other shots I've taken with this lens, but I don't want to get discouraged -- it's a fantastic lens otherwise, but I believe I am going to pull out my 50 more often.

That would require quite a bit of cropping in post

Here it is again, but this time in my face. No zooming necessary. I took this just a few days ago. REALLY BUMMED!

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/56994​34019/

No kidding! Even at this small size very obvious on that middle flower! To be honest, it seem a little excessive. Perhaps you got a bad lens. You didn't let your kids play soccer with it, did you?

I never let anyone touch my lenses -- but could damage cause worse CA? I don't think this was a bad copy -- I've had it for about 9 months, took Senior portraits, and many more, but never saw/noticed the CA before now. (Of course, I read about it on the forums, too.) Well, I might have to go back and look some shots over, but if the lens has a problem, I can't do anything about it now.

YankeeMom wrote in post #12370656
I never let anyone touch my lenses -- but could damage cause worse CA? I don't think this was a bad copy -- I've had it for about 9 months, took Senior portraits, and many more, but never saw/noticed the CA before now. (Of course, I read about it on the forums, too.) Well, I might have to go back and look some shots over, but if the lens has a problem, I can't do anything about it now.

My approach to things is that CA is only a problem when it is a problem. In other words does it really visually disturb an image when it is displayed. Yeah, I have a lens that is "notorious" for fringing (the 85L) and yeah, there are images that occasionally show noticeable fringing and I have to deal with it. But I do recognize that this is only noticeable with high contrast areas and I don't go hunting for it otherwise.

No hunting necessary on that last photo. (But I am more aware of it now.) If I only see it at 100% crop, no biggie -- but when I saw it today on that standard size, I was not happy. I hate to think that the 85 can't handle high contrast better than my 50. Well, I expect that the clean shots still outnumber the problems, but we'll have to see (and make sure that something isn't suddenly wrong with this lens.)

CA is a fact of life on long, fast lenses.
The 85/1.8 is known to have it, the 85L has it, the 100L macro has it.
The 50/1.8 is not a long lens, so has less CA.

If it's that big of a problem to you, search for an 125mm APO Lanthar.
http://regex.info/blog​/2010-05-28/1531

Thanks -- I didn't know it was so common among those lenses. Again, it's good to know so that I can utilize my 50 more in certain circumstances.

135mm f/2L has it...

While we're listing lenses:

35L has it
24L has it

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #12371419
While we're listing lenses:

35L has it
24L has it

They also have lateral CA

Wow, so not just long lenses? Confusing -- if short L's have it, why don't I see it with my 50 so much? I'm sure every lens is capable of it, but my 85 1.8 seems to epidemic of it lately!

René Damkot wrote in post #12371545
That's lateral CA

What is the difference? Does that mean the kind that only happens with high contrast (or is that the cause of ALL CA?)

Check the links I gave a few posts back.
Lateral CA can be corrected in the Raw converter.